Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Yes, that's right. Out of the tens of thousands of pages I've read on this subject, that was all I got out of it.

I'm an Atheist. Wake up to yourself and admit that there are people who know a little bit more than you do about this subject and that those people all disagree with you.

It's not me you have to convince, it's them. Get cracking.

Do you really not understand that you are not talking about evidence of Jesus at all?

What you are talking about as "evidence" is what you think were Paul's religious beliefs 2000 years ago ... you are talking about possible evidence of Pauls beliefs about Jesus, not about any actual evidence of Jesus.

Do you really not appreciate the vast difference there?

Look, try this - there are millions of people today who believe God is real. They swear to know he is absolutely real. Do you really think their belief is evidence that God actually IS real??

 

[Brainache]

Do you really not understand that you are not talking about evidence of Jesus at all?

What you are talking about as "evidence" is what you think were Paul's religious beliefs 2000 years ago ... you are talking about possible evidence of Pauls beliefs about Jesus, not about any actual evidence of Jesus.

Do you really not appreciate the vast difference there?

Look, try this - there are millions of people today who believe God is real. They swear to know he is absolutely real. Do you really think their belief is evidence that God actually IS real??

No. I don't believe in the Supernatural.

If you think the only evidence is a couple of lines in some letters of Paul, you don't understand how the study of History works. Until you do, further discussion is pointless.

So, good luck with your quest to overthrow the dominant paradigm or whatever, but you are fighting an uphill battle, going about it the way you are.

Cheers.

 

[The Norseman]

I think that the only real answer comes from what assumptions one makes a priori -- the people who think that "Yeshua existed" approach any evidence it is always read in such a way as to show support to the concept that "Yeshua existed". Those that say "Yeshua did not exist" approach the evidence in a more realistic manner -- they're saying in essence "what can we bring forth that has evidential value in a Yeshua existing?" Then the answer "we don't really know" becomes very clear whereas the first assumption always and forever muddies the waters.

 

[Belz...]

Since there is no body available as is the case with Julius Caesar (who conquered much of the known world) and Alexander the Great (who conquered much of the known world) you have to look at the "historical evidence" of which there is a lot.

I guess you missed the part where none of it is reliable evidence.

 

[The Norseman]

So that’s it? That’s your evidence which shows Jesus was a real figure? "Because Paul thought he was real" ? That’s your evidence which convinces you?

I was quite surprised when Piggy said on two separate occasions in one of the "Did Jesus exist" Megathreads (so much so that I quoted them both to be certain) that the very best evidence that exists for an historical Yeshua is that there were a bunch of people who believed he existed.

And, naturally, what followed those claims were a huge assortment of derision, obfuscation, mocking posts, and heated denials and claims of having already provided billions of words' worth of proof of Yeshua's existence. Plus, lots of appeals to this solid phalanx of Undisputed Champions of the Ancient World Historians Whom No One May Ever Question.

 

[tsig]

Yes, but like the people 2000 years ago they believe that Jesus was flesh and blood and walked amongst us. That is kind of the point. That a flesh and blood human had to go to God to represent the faithful so God will send the heavenly host to destroy the enemy. It won't work if the Messiah isn't a human being.

So if you have any evidence of a cult who believed that the Messiah didn't have to be a flesh and blood human, now is the time to produce it.

I'm sure the members of the cult believed he was real, that doesn't prove he was.


Here you go:

Docetism Belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

 

[tsig]

No. I don't believe in the Supernatural.

If you think the only evidence is a couple of lines in some letters of Paul, you don't understand how the study of History works. Until you do, further discussion is pointless.

So, good luck with your quest to overthrow the dominant paradigm or whatever, but you are fighting an uphill battle, going about it the way you are.

Cheers.

You're the only one fighting a battle here, the rest of us are watching you dance around with sword in hand battling Mythical Mythers that only you can see.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm sure the members of the cult believed he was real, that doesn't prove he was.


Here you go:

Docetism Belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

And even the Doetics believed that Jesus wlked among humans. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about early Christians' believing that Jesus actually existed.

 

[Brainache]

I'm sure the members of the cult believed he was real, that doesn't prove he was.


Here you go:

Docetism Belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

Not the Ethereal Ghostly only-ever-up-in-heaven Jesus that Carrier imagines people believed in. I have no idea why you think that is relevant to the debate.

You're the only one fighting a battle here, the rest of us are watching you dance around with sword in hand battling Mythical Mythers that only you can see.

Is your google broken?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed but was invented by the Christian community around 100 CE.[1] The idea was first put forward in the late 18th century and developed and popularised in the 19th by Bruno Bauer.[2] Bauer's three-fold argument, which set the basis for most subsequent adherents to the theory, was as follows:
The New Testament, especially the gospels and the Pauline epistles, are of no historical value;
The failure of ancient non-Christian writers of the 1st century to mention Jesus shows that he did not exist;
Christianity was syncretistic and mythical in its beginnings.[3]
The idea was revived in the early 20th century by the British rationalist John M. Robertson, in America by William Benjamin Smith, and in Germany by Arthur Drews;[4] contemporary exponents include G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier and others with the writings of Wells emerging as the most thorough and sophisticated overview.[5]...

Catch up with what the issue actually is here. It's embarrassing for everyone.

And even the Doetics believed that Jesus wlked among humans. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about early Christians' believing that Jesus actually existed.

Exactly.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes, but like the people 2000 years ago they believe that Jesus was flesh and blood and walked amongst us.

"They believed" it? Yes. But that doesn't mean they had any more reason to think it was true than the people today.

Is there any reason to think that the people 2000 years ago had any more reason to think Jesus was flesh and blood than anyone today?

Someone told them that he was, therefore they believed it. That's not evidence of anything.

 

[pgwenthold]

And even the Doetics believed that Jesus wlked among humans. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about early Christians' believing that Jesus actually existed.

It's not hard to understand they believed that. Shoot, people TODAY believe that, despite the fact that they have no direct knowledge of such.

Why should it have been any different 2000 years ago?

 

[Brainache]

"They believed" it? Yes. But that doesn't mean they had any more reason to think it was true than the people today.

Is there any reason to think that the people 2000 years ago had any more reason to think Jesus was flesh and blood than anyone today?

Someone told them that he was, therefore they believed it. That's not evidence of anything.

At least one of them went around letting people say he was Jesus' brother.

I happen to think it's possible that the HJ is the person referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "The Teacher Of Righteousness", in which case we might even have documents in his own hand.

Others disagree.

It's an ongoing debate.

 

[dafydd]

Is Doc back? Pass the popcorn.

 

[pgwenthold]

At least one of them went around letting people say he was Jesus' brother.

I happen to think it's possible that the HJ is the person referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as "The Teacher Of Righteousness", in which case we might even have documents in his own hand.

Others claim that Jesus is just Julius Caesar. Therefore, he existed.

If you redefine Jesus to be someone who you know existed, then it's easy to say he existed.

Of course, this is the problem that many have pointed out.

 

[Stone]

It is clear enough to me that Paul was talking about a flesh and blood Jesus, when he wasn't specifically talking about that revelation in Galatians.

You choose to see it differently. Good luck to you. As I said, it isn't me you have to convince, it's the Historians.

The Historians have made their case, I accept it. It's up to you to account for all of the Historians evidence

<snip>

Did you pay attention to anything I said?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stone

 

[tsig]

And even the Doetics believed that Jesus wlked among humans. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about early Christians' believing that Jesus actually existed.

What's so hard to understand about the early Christian belief that Jesus existed isn't proof that he did in fact exist.

 

[tsig]

Not the Ethereal Ghostly only-ever-up-in-heaven Jesus that Carrier imagines people believed in. I have no idea why you think that is relevant to the debate.



Is your google broken?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory



Catch up with what the issue actually is here. It's embarrassing for everyone.



Exactly.

The problem is that you are arguing with:

John M. Robertson, in America by William Benjamin Smith, and in Germany by Arthur Drews;[4] contemporary exponents include G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier
And not the posters here.

 

[Stone]

Just like all those evil Engineers who know all about the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

Or those evil scientists who know all about the conspiracy to promulgate evolution in our schools.

Are [Helms and Ellegard] really in the Jesus Myth camp? Or are you maybe telling a bit of a fib here?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

Why should anyone bother trying to overcome your invincible ignorance?

That's a keeper. I'm posting that up on my desk. Priceless!

Cheers,

Stone

 

[Brainache]

The problem is that you are arguing with:

John M. Robertson, in America by William Benjamin Smith, and in Germany by Arthur Drews;[4] contemporary exponents include G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier
And not the posters here.

Good. So why all the antagonism?

If you don't have a problem with accepting that Professionals deserve respect, you don't have a problem with me.

But if you think you can overturn an Academic consensus with a youtube video, go join the Truthers.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What's so hard to understand about the early Christian belief that Jesus existed isn't proof that he did in fact exist.

Nothing; that is not what is under dispute. Of course if you actually responded to what was written rather some straw man you would know that.